About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
commissioners have to say. >> president fong: commissioner antonini svttledz i know a couple -- >> commissionecouple -- >> commissioner antonini: a couple of speakers spoke about soundness during the construction process. this is an issue that has to do with department of building inspection. the project sponsor, in this sort of building, is responsible to make sure the shoring is adequate, that no damage is done to any of the adjacent properties. and that is not really an issue that we have control over here. it's something that needs to be taken up with during the permitting process. and it routinely is. and that would be mandatory that shoring be adequate and there be no adverse effects on adjacent properties from the excavation or anything else that's being done. in regards to the project itself, i think it's a very well-done. the house is extremely contextural, if you look at the renderings of the new building it fits in beautifully with the homes on the street, that unfortunately doesn't happen enough, and i think it's an example what can be done architecturally to make a home look like
. >> commissioner antonini. >> my sediments are the same particularly with january 31 because we're off on the third and i realize it's not the holiday but i know staff has to prepare and the first would cut into their preparation for having a hearing on january 3 but i think we should add the 31 so we have four in that month. i don't think if it doesn't fall on the day that we meet we shouldn't take it off with the exception of the first day of chanukkah was on the five of december and i think we would have that off because i think the holiday is celebrated over a period of days but the first day is the most important and that is up to the discretion of the commissioners and i'm not sure where we could add anything back because we have the holiday at the end of december and early january, so we might only have two hearings in december of this year. >> commissioner board. yeah, i think we want to be. >> >> respectful of the holidays that fall within that window. i would say we meet more often than the board of supervisors in terms they have weekly meetings and the last meeting is the 11 and we have
carefully listen to. >> commissioner antonini, you made a motion, a loose motion at that. is there a second? >> i'll try to capture it if i can. >> okay. commissioner wu will second. so, the motion, if i can try to capture it, is to adopt a resolution recommending approval to the board of supervisors with a strong request to engage -- >> no, no, no. >> let me restate it if i can, mr. ionin. we are asking the supervisor to engage the public for additional input and then create a third draft that takes into consideration their input as well as those comments of ours with specific reference to the trigger date and the period of time during which the appeals could occur. >> okay. this is a completely different motion. it was in case the supervisor chooses to move forward. so, we're disregarding the fact that the supervisor can move forward on the legislation and we're going to draft a new resolution simply requesting -- >> it's understood that if he decides to move forward without taking into consideration, that's his province because it's an administrative action. >> okay, my apologies. i misu
would be. >> well, let me think about it. go ahead. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. so, commissioner sugaya, would you be interested in another hearing possibly? [laughter] >> let me put forth -- >> really. >> let me put forth what my idea would be and let's see if it has support. and parenthetically, there are some additions of things in this. i i understand the negative declarations now would have to be appealed to us first, which was not necessarily the case. so, there's more process added in some of these. i would move that we recommend to the supervisor support, but with these modifications. longer, but clear, clear appeal periods, not to exceed three months from whatever we determine to be the date of the first complete approval document. and what i mean by that is something that you can begin to build on. if you get a plumbing permit, if you get, you know, the very first permit that you're going to be building something that really doesn't give the public much of an input as to what you're going to build. but if you have something that has the plans together and
antonini. >> thank you. actually, was able to go out there and see the site a little bit in the past, but i did have a question maybe for ms. barkley. i guess, i'm looking at the two plans next to each other. if i am correct, there are no changes that are being proposed by d-r requestor to the lower two floors. it's only the upper floor -- >> that's correct. >> and i guess everyone is agreed upon the light gray color and the translucent windows to, you know, minimize the amount of darkness on that area. and i think -- >>> that is already established. >> all i'm seeing here is the family room being moved to the sort of more to the center and taking up part of the open roof that would be to the east side if my direction is complete. and they're claiming this family room is larger in the version, the janet campbell version than the other version. i haven't quite been able to figure that out and they're putting a couple skylights in that area. >>> first of all, i think the first thing is that the owners wanted to live certain way and they have designed this building so that it accommodates not
republicans. not you, dr. antonini. i think this will cut off debate, cut off their ability to appeal. no matter how much supervisor wiener and the department says, oh, no, this is to streamline, to make it more predictable, to cut down costs, and that it will do. it would make it more predictable. things will go through, no appeals. it will cut down costs because, well, no appeals. and the time frame would be shortened. and some of these projects that were mentioned, the bike grant for example, that was delayed because the department didn't do an e-i-r. give me a break. and the housing element of 2004, again, no e-i-r. it was a negative declaration. the department really has to be watched. san francisco is only 47 square miles and we need the strongest c-e-q-a laws that could be in existence. we can't lower it to the state level. this is crucial. we live in a dense area and here people are just trying to cut back public debate, public opportunities for appeal. it's almost as though the lobbyists were allowed to write this. you heard some of the developers here -- one developer. you k
. >> commissioners, there is a motion to not take d-r and approve as proposed. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? okay. seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. [adjourned] . >> good afternoon, everyone, this is the monday, december 3, 2012 meeting of the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. my name is eric mar, the chair. to my right is vice chair supervisor cohen, to my left is supervisor scott wiener. we are also joined by supervisor olage >> items acted upon today will appear on the december 11 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. colleagues, we have 7 items on the agenda. i'm going to ask if there is no objection if we could take no. 7 as a courtesy to supervisor olage to hear that i
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)